Adele Lock v Paul Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator) & Anor.

Adele Lock v Paul Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator) & Anor.

Mrs Lock did not have standing under section 168(5) because her interest in challenging the assignment was not aligned with the interests of creditors generally but was to protect herself and her family from the claims. The liquidator's decision to assign the claims to Manolete was not perverse, as there was no evidence Mrs Lock or her family would have made a better offer, and the liquidator had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant/applicant: Adele Lock; Respondent: Paul Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator); Respondent: Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Assignment by Liquidator
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidator's Powers, Assignment of Claims, Standing Under Insolvency Act, Section 168(5) Applications
Insolvency Law Company Law Liquidator's Powers Assignment of Claims Standing Under Insolvency Act Section 168(5) Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adele Lock

Appellant/applicant

Paul Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator)

Respondent

Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Assignment by Liquidator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Lock had standing under section 168(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 to challenge the liquidator's assignment of claims
  2. 2 Whether the liquidator's decision to assign the claims was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Lock did not have standing under section 168(5) because her interest in challenging the assignment was not aligned with the interests of creditors generally but was to protect herself and her family from the claims. The liquidator's decision to assign the claims to Manolete was not perverse, as there was no evidence Mrs Lock or her family would have made a better offer, and the liquidator had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.